Dr. Who

I surely do not want to weaken the Oline to move up. I don't really think there is an expendable roster player with the kind of value you are looking for. To get one of the big 3, you are significantly raiding 2025 picks and probably trading 28 and 60. I'd be excited to get one of them, but that price is too high, imo. If Thomas falls a bit, there might be a deal to be made there, though he's definitely a tier below. I think they need 2 WRs, either through the draft or the draft and a trade for a veteran. I'd prefer to draft around 28 and use a 2025 second to move up from 60 for another receiver. That would be my plan, but there are multiple feasible options. At this point, it's close enough that I am ready for the speculation to end and see what Beane can figure out. I don't think he will be passive. If I had to bet, I'd say he moves up, but at this point it's unclear how far. I don't really see anyone wanting to trade back out of the top ten to 28. Beane might have to move up into the teens, and then move up again from there if a top 3 WR is his target. Going to be pricey as hell if that's what happens.

Van Demark has played well at LT in the pre-season, so maybe there's some hope there, but I don't think he's shown well in limited time at RT, actually. Collins is pretty washed and a backup at best. Using Brown in a trade up means you are losing two starters from the best Oline the Bills have had in years, and it was only pretty good. In short, I think that is a pretty awful move to use Brown as a chip to move up. Beane put himself in this position by trading Diggs, but before that, by not investing sufficiently at WR. I think it will be hard to get any of the top 3, and expensive to get the fourth. The WR room has to be addressed, though, so I guess we'll see how much of a wizard our GM really is.

I think that is a genuine option, and I understand your rationale. I'm simply still open to 2 WRs early because of the quality in this draft and also because I have a few favorites that I think could fill out the WR room.

That's a higher price than I would be willing to pay, but if you retain 60, I might pay the rest. No, 1 receiver won't, but adding a potential WR1 on a rookie contract goes a long way to giving you a shot at winning a SB when your QB is Josh Allen. I think Beane has traditionally tried to have a team with depth and as few holes as possible. That helps get you to the playoffs, but it doesn't pay off in the post-season. We are a good team with fewer elite playmakers than the teams that are regularly making it to the SB. My view is spend more assets to get a few elite playmakers, even if it means you aren't as "complete" a team.

Just the thought of it makes my television nervous.

Part of the appeal of Odunze is the rookie contract with a fifth-year option. The price folks are throwing out there to acquire him is plausibly accurate. It's a little rich for my taste. I'd rather hold onto 60 since we were Goodelled out of a 3rd rounder. A trade for the best established WR includes a hefty contract, or the need for one to retain the fella. So I wouldn't pay as much as I would for Odunze, even if you argue the established WR is a known commodity and Odunze involves some risk.

Well done, OP, but I am still in the camp of those who want a big X (split end.) I also want a flanker, only I think McConkey is that player (he's not a slot, no matter how many times folks say it.)

I don't think it's much of a problem. The issue really only becomes difficult if they are both elite producers. If that happens, I'm still happy to have that on rookie contracts. If I lose one of them to free agency, I'm likely getting a solid comp pick (though for the Bills, maybe only a fourth). Regardless, the double dip is also motivated by the requirement of a big X and a movement Z. I don't agree with those who think Shakir or Samuel is a replacement for either Diggs or Davis. Anyway, I don't think you can draft worrying about the terrible implications of if you get it right. At minimum, get it right and you have an asset that can be extended, traded, or yields a comp pick down the line.

That is very lazy thinking. I suppose you could say that without taking into consideration the particulars of any draft. No one knows, so why trade up? But that isn't strictly true. There are tiers, and there are players with greater chances of success than others. Of course, there's always risk. You can't eliminate that in life, so you can't eliminate it from the draft. Certainly, folks who reactively think Sammy Watkins is somehow the basis of a draft law of gravity that means you should never trade up for a WR are not prudential enough. Practical wisdom is taking into consideration the precise nature of particular situations, and choosing what is best. That doesn't mean moving up for a top 3 WR is correct. The cost might be too much, but it might also be worth the risk, depending . . . so one hopes Beane makes the right calculation.

Folks who still want defense ahead of WR in this year with the draft set up to fill those holes, and obvious need, are either always going to think Josh Allen should elevate mid-level talent or they are Sean McD.

Yeah, I agree. I have days where I really like the other guys, but I just couldn't pass on MHJ.

The other thing that is stupid is to overgeneralize from a single example.

Let's just pretend they get to 4. Who do you think they are taking in that scenario?

How high up do they have to get to be certain one of them is available? They could conceivably all be gone by pick 6.

One of these days, you're going to fall off the edge of the earth, and then how funny will it be?

His character fits McD to a T. He'd be a great pick, but how much is it going to cost to grab him? And all that is predicated on him falling to maybe 8. It's not at all a sure thing that happens.

I've been arguing for McConkey and Legette, but either way, or some other combination (draft or draft + trade), I believe Beane has to bring in a dynamic Z and a big X.

That works, too. No, for me that does not equate to a semblance of a draft in 2025.

Assuming you can keep a semblance of a draft in 2025 and grab Odunze, I would do it. I like Legette and McConkey. If I have Odunze, I'd rather add McConkey, but no one should argue with any one or combination of them. That would be a home run draft for the WR room. WarriorSpikes is a master story-teller. He'll find a way to create a plausible scenario for 2025, regardless. Like Rumplestiltskin, he's adept at taking straw and spinning it into gold. Whether that turns out true or maybe pyrite is another matter.

I haven't been a fan of the fast feather, but if they end up with both Xaviers, that could be a nice combo.

And who is playing RT in 2024?

He does have negatives. As the Jokeman indicated, McConkey has battled injuries, so concerns about durability are not ridiculous. And he's not a great receiver in traffic, though he runs such savage routes that he normally creates a lot of space. The big 3 at the top of the draft have high floors and high ceilings, though no one is without risk. After that, everyone has something to worry about for sure. In addition, lots of folks in this thread think McConkey is just another slot receiver. We don't need more of those, frankly, but I don't think that's what he is. In the old nomenclature, he's a flanker. I think McConkey has some elite traits. The gritty slot/lunch pail thing annoys me. I think he's more the Fred Astaire of wide receivers. He's smooth, and at the same time can break a route off with violence.

I honestly don't know the answer to that, but what I do know is I don't have confidence there is an able replacement on the roster that I would want to be RT for the entire season.

I think he can play the Diggs' role. You'd still need to get a big X. I have advocated for McConkey and a trade up from 60 for Legette. Naturally, you're free to draw your own conclusions and advocate for whatever you like. If you think you only need one receiver to add to the WR group (I don't,) then a big trade up for Odunze is probably the best you could do if focused on the kind of boundary receiver you are looking for. I know for whatever reason, you don't normally respond to anything I write, but the questions on Mitchell are about his effort, his diabetes, etc. I can't answer how much of that is manageable, real, etc. I do like him.

McConkey is absolutely a volume receiver year one. You don't know what you are talking about. Also, I don't think "dissident" means what you think it means.